31
Good articles, Deb and Stephen1!

It just occured to me that there was a very smart critic of certain scientists' extraordinary condemnation of astrology, who was Paul Feyerabend. Maybe you know about him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend . One has to be a better philosopher of science than I am to follow all of his arguments, but basically he was a radical professor of philosophy who took scientists to task on their own turf. His key work was probably in showing how the scientific method actually wasn't used in a lot of break-through science, despite the widespread belief among scientists that this method distinguishes their research. To quote wikipedia on Feyerabend's anti-scientism stance:

"Feyerabend described science as being...obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions. For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist."

To me, some of the arguments against astrology's critics are:

1. Rather than being scientific, the criticisms themselves lack a sufficiently scientific basis. I've tried to argue for what I think better statistical studies of astrology might look like on the statistics thread on the philosophy and science board. We know that most statistical studies to date do not bolster astrology's truth-claims, but one could equally invalidate the methodologies of much prior statistical work in this area.

2. A hallmark of science is keeping an open mind. How many great breakthroughs in the history of science were achieved by someone willing to question the status quo?

3. Much of the criticism of astrology is ill-informed. For example, the article in Deb's link cited criticisms of using astrology in meteorological explanation. Although planetary positions might not explain the meteorology of weather events, a lot of ancient weather astrology was not about explanation of weather patterns, but forecasting. And some of this material--like "if you can see a brown ring around the moon, expect stormy weather"--works fairly well because oftentimes there was a meteorological explanation for traditional weather lore--the "red sky at night" type-predictions.

4. The criticism of astrology is very similar to a scientistic criticism of religion. But the rub is that science can only make legitimate statements about phenomena that it actually tests. And few scientists would claim that any and all phenomena are testable according to scientific methods.

Science can neither affirm or deny the existence of God, for example, because there is no conceivable scientific experiment that would enable the "God hypothesis" to be confirmed or refuted. Similarly, there are numerous legitimate university disciplines in the humanities and fine arts that are beyond the purview of science: studio art and history would be two examples.

Astrology may have difficulty in cutting both ways--scientific and non-scientific, but the above arguments might have some merit.

But then, the reasons why astrologers need to step up to the academic plate are for a future discussion.

Re: Science and scientism

32
Stephen1 wrote:
waybread wrote:I agree with most of what's been posted above. I don't think the problem is science per se, but scientism and some scientists who, as fallible human beings, venture loudly into areas they haven't studied, biases intact. But this trichotemy is true of many fields, not just science.
Although, as any members of this forum who've followed Deb's link to my blog will know, I'm hardly a "friend" of astrology, I do have a lot of sympathy with those that are increasingly discomforted by the kind of totalitarianism which sceptics seem to be promulgating. It's one thing to disagree with another person's perspective, even profoundly, but it's very much another to suggest that there's something illegitimate in those people's attempts to express their views.

I've written about this very subject here: http://billynojob.wordpress.com/2010/04 ... w-priests/
Hello Stephen1

Sorry I didn't get round to acknowledging this sooner, I haven't had as much time on this forum this week as I would've liked.

I liked your blog entries, which I read the other day.

Thanks for making this statement about people expressing their views, and the rising 'totalitarianism' amongst sceptics. It's not something I had fully confronted until now but I can understand a lot of the reasons why it's growing, even though I don't fully understand it yet as a phenomenon.

I also want to say that as someone interested in astrology I've never stopped questioning not only astrology but myself as a human being. Usually a fair chunk of confidence is sacrificed as a result, but so what... there are lots of more important things than that.

Thanks once more for explaining your views on your blog, and a big thanks too for being willing to come here to say what you've said.

Regards

H.

33
Thanks once more for explaining your views on your blog, and a big thanks too for being willing to come here to say what you've said.
Thanks handn. Although I might equally say thanks to this forum for letting me come here to say what I've said! It's one of the worst aspects of "discussions" on the web: either the only contributions are from those who already agree with each other, or else those who disagree do so via flame wars that get us nowhere.

It's rare (and a refreshing thing when it happens) that you find a place where people have the confidence to allow dissent on their pages.

S

34
?'The Backstory of the AA's Petition; and why Twitter-Chums stick together when the Beeb makes a Boob'

Several people have asked for a clarification of the AA's complaint against the BBC, and over the last couple of weeks I have been shocked by the way that some people have urged others to suppress the petition and call upon the BBC to not consider the AA's complaint.

So this is an account of what I understand about the cause for complaint, and what I have observed of the tactics used to suppress the complaint and the petition.

http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/ ... tition.pdf

35
I didn't read all of it, but this somehow reminds me of Don Quichotte's fruitless fight against wind-mills.

The German astrologer Doebereiner repeatedly said: "An astrologer is an outlaw, a societally never respected person, with no status, sort of a gypsie. He even has to be like this because of his "Neptunian" profession, in order his antennae to the transcendent (supernatural) to function."

I know it hurts permanently to be pissed on. But we shouldn't expect any real reputation by the mainstream (though a correct and fair behavior of course would be nice)...
http://astroinfo.astrologix.de/english.htm

36
Hi Richard,

suggest you read it through so you understand that this is not at all about creating a reputation in mainstream; just requesting the correct and fair behaviour which you say would be nice. Which we are entitled to.

I don't think that astrology is a Neptunian profession myself, and have never felt that sense of displacement or disrespect that you describe for being an astrologer either. Obviously we come up against a lot of misunderstanding, much best ignored; but when it becomes deliberate, habitual and wilful misrepresentation, then I think we have a responsibility to do something about this, so that the new students aren't having to think as Doebereiner did. The report made clear that we are not looking for increased exposure though. (Maybe you realised this in the end? Sorry, I didn't read all of your post either. :-? )

Deb

37
The cold and harsh, Saturn reality of facing the ridicule and persecution and worse, of astrology and astrologers, is because the vast majority of humans are not actually human, they are unselfconscious and unreflecting machines, and they are 'animals in human disguise.'

Most so-called humans have the same type of animal instincts one would find in a sheep and/or lemming: the follow-the-leader instinct. Most humans function through instinct and only use their reason to rationalize what they find themselves in the act of doing or having done.

I do not mean any of this in a derogatory or demeaning attitude, it is a simple fact, and I am not belittling animals either.

One text which could be cited and pointed to, when facing this herd-mentality of those who judge what they have no knowledge or understanding of, and who make this judgment simply because they are trapped in the herd mentality, which at the present place and time includes the meme of "astrology and astrologers are bad," is:

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay

Not that this will change anything either, because people trapped in the herd-mentality have a vested interest in remaining in a position of comfort with 'their' (spoon-fed) ideas. The ideas which rational animals retain, are the foundation of their sense of self (this self is actually a lie, in that it is not actually one's self). When these ideas are found to be false or suspect or wrong, it is easier and safer to close the mind and lie to oneself and develop buffers, and deny whatever causes the cracking in one's foundation of one's sense of self.

Many of us can probably understand this simply because it is likely that we were not raised with astrology as a foundational sense of identity; we likely discovered astrology as adults and shifted our sense of identity after we had already 'fallen down the infinite void' - which happens every time one's foundational understanding and views of reality are changed - because all of our ideas are tied up in our precious (and false) sense of self.

Another problem in dealing with astrology persecutors is simply their own ignorance and laziness, but we cannot change the lazy portion.

Also, aside from biological-herd-instincts, ignorance, laziness, and fear of the unknown - which is actually fear of losing one's false sense of self, there is a cultural problem.

This cultural problem is simply the very nature of the way we were taught to think. Only a small percentage of ideas are original, the rest of humanity follows and retains the ideas of others. And in our culture we have been trained to submit to our rulers, whether that be the parents, teachers, policeman, judge, employer, slavemaster, priest, scientist with a PhD, a judgmental God, etc. We have been trained to think that anyone in any position of authority has the power and the right to tell us whether we are good or evil, or right or wrong, and that they have the power and right to punish us accordingly. The people at the top of any group or organization have the right to tell us how we have to live, and what ideas are appropriate and what ideas are inappropriate.

To have someone at the top is fine when that person lives according to the tao, or dharma, etc., but when the people at the top are egoistic, selfish, liars, with materialistic values, and greedy, and when the people at the top have not transcended the animal passions, then society is in big trouble for two reasons. 1) The people at the top will take advantage of those below them and use other humans as a means to their ends. 2) The people at the bottom will imitate the people at the top and act the same way.

We have all seen what happens with this scenario when we look around us at the endless wars and robbery and lies, and in this particular instance astrologer persecution.

When it went out of fashion to have slaves, peasants, indentured servants, etc., the people at the top invented a new terminology: employers and employees. But the underlying thought-program never changed.

When it went out of fashion to have emperors, kings and queens, lords, etc., then the people at the top invented the idea of democracy, and the political rights of voting cattle, but the paradigm actually never changed.

Humans are not free in any sense of the term. They are prisoners on all levels, and the attacks on astrology are a symptom of this and a good example of the prison cage of the mind. The prison cage of the mind is more subtle and hard to detect, but it is stronger than material cages.

Humans have always been dependent upon each other for survival, being that they are herd animals and the length of upbringing (dependence) is even longer than most other animals. Anyone who steps outside of the herd, whether it is physically or mentally, is a threat to the group. Thus, astrologers are persecuted, simply because the authorities decided, for whatever reason, that astrology is not an idea which is acceptable to have.

The problem of astrologer persecution, will only be solved through one of two ways: 1) the authorities will gradually allow their 'slaves' or 'cattle' to believe in astrology again, or 2) humanity itself will change.

I am doubtful of the second one.

The first one is feasible, but the underlying reasons for the phenomenon we witnessed at BBC, will not be changed even if the first one happens, the only difference is that the 'cattle' will be trained to believe in astrology again and they will attack some other system of thought or 'unhealthy' idea - which they have been trained to believe. The phenomenon of elitist manipulated mass hysteria that was directed at Saddam Hussein or Ghaddafi or Hitler or Intelligent Design or astrology or fill-in-the-blank, will not leave us unless humanity itself changes.

Another reason astrologers are both upset with being persecuted, and why the 'cattle' persecute them, is because, generally speaking, humans have an innate need for acceptance for various reasons. Those 'cattle' who were persecuting astrologers were simply reaffirming their thought programs with each other and affirming their being accepted in the group of "enlightened so-called scientific and secular higher humans" by lashing out at astrology.

Even if our rulers could establish a one-world society, it would still be run by the same type of greedy people, and their 'cattle' would still attack astrologers or anyone whom they were trained to consider as wrong.

We can try to put leather over the entire rocky, thorny surface of the earth, or we can put some shoes on. I have been a political activist, and I bristled at those who did not care either through apathy or focus on more shallow things, but lately I have been contemplating putting some shoes on.

Some precious, wicked thoughts.

ETA: But we each have our own path to walk, so I wish you luck Deb, and anyone else involved.
Declining from the public ways, walk in unfrequented paths. - Pythagoras

Jousting at Windmills

38
You fight fire with fire. Does anyone have the birth data for Brian Cox? If so, go out on a limb and make public predictions about his near future, predictions that are not general (and perhaps not statistically significant -- but which have personal impact on Professor Cox himself) ut specific.

You aren't going to win this war. Poor don Quijote got himself pretty well banged up by those windmills. His time might have been better spent tending his garden.

If astrology works, and if you (whoever you are) are a competent astrologer, it shouldn't be all that hard to find a few public figures about whom you can make some dramatic predictions for the near future. Did anyone in England predict Diana's death? The Falklands War? The beheading of Charles I?

Look how easily Cox countered your thrust. He can generate far more "letters of protest" than you can. He owns the Bully Pulpit. And then the whole affair turns into a barroom brawl, nothing is demonstrated or proven, and it is one man's opinion against another's. Cox feeds on the controversy and grows in strength. Your strategy and tactics will not win.

There is one simple Rule of War: there are no rules.

39
Fate does seem to have a certain sense of irony.

At the time I read this thread and some of the links, especially the comments at the guardian, I noticed the title of a book on a shelf: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, and I thought how appropriate this was for the phenomenon at the guardian, of the science cult attacking astrology.

I must have read that text over a dozen years ago.

Later on after I wrote the previous post, I started thinking that actually a modern book (ca 1841) would be likely to consider astrology as a popular delusion, and so I opened it up again and sure enough, there was astrology listed among the divination section.

My methods of study in those days, was to purchase books from sections of bookstores which I had not yet looked into, it was a completely "random" method of study, since I knew that I needed to know and understand, but I did not yet know even what there was to understand; then with each new text, I would purchase books on topics I learned about through other books.

I was initially introduced to the ancient sciences through texts such as the above-mentioned book, which were written by moderns and which were against the ancient sciences, but these crusaders made me aware of the existence of such.

It is ironic I cited a text with a catchy title to use against anti-astrologers, and that text is one which the guardian commentator mob would include in their canon of scientism, being that it was a book against astrology!

If Charles Mackay were alive today, he would have to include the people who are a result of his own paradigm and time, and those who were trained to think just like him!
Declining from the public ways, walk in unfrequented paths. - Pythagoras

40
The more attacks, the better. The more there will be articles that questions astrology, the more people will turn to astrology. I mean, would you go out of your way to criticize something that is insignificant and laughable?

"To refrain from imitation is the best revenge", a quote by Marcus Aurelius. The last thing you need is "the science cult vs astrology" thing or some lunatic that thinks he is an astrologer talking about astrology being a psychosocial phenomenon that should be approached as a play or a football match.

41
varuna wrote:The cold and harsh, Saturn reality of facing the ridicule and persecution and worse, of astrology and astrologers, is because the vast majority of humans are not actually human, they are unselfconscious and unreflecting machines, and they are 'animals in human disguise.'

Most so-called humans have the same type of animal instincts one would find in a sheep and/or lemming: the follow-the-leader instinct. Most humans function through instinct and only use their reason to rationalize what they find themselves in the act of doing or having done.

I do not mean any of this in a derogatory or demeaning attitude, it is a simple fact, and I am not belittling animals either.

One text which could be cited and pointed to, when facing this herd-mentality of those who judge what they have no knowledge or understanding of, and who make this judgment simply because they are trapped in the herd mentality, which at the present place and time includes the meme of "astrology and astrologers are bad," is:

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay

Not that this will change anything either, because people trapped in the herd-mentality have a vested interest in remaining in a position of comfort with 'their' (spoon-fed) ideas. The ideas which rational animals retain, are the foundation of their sense of self (this self is actually a lie, in that it is not actually one's self). When these ideas are found to be false or suspect or wrong, it is easier and safer to close the mind and lie to oneself and develop buffers, and deny whatever causes the cracking in one's foundation of one's sense of self.

Many of us can probably understand this simply because it is likely that we were not raised with astrology as a foundational sense of identity; we likely discovered astrology as adults and shifted our sense of identity after we had already 'fallen down the infinite void' - which happens every time one's foundational understanding and views of reality are changed - because all of our ideas are tied up in our precious (and false) sense of self.

Another problem in dealing with astrology persecutors is simply their own ignorance and laziness, but we cannot change the lazy portion.

Also, aside from biological-herd-instincts, ignorance, laziness, and fear of the unknown - which is actually fear of losing one's false sense of self, there is a cultural problem.

This cultural problem is simply the very nature of the way we were taught to think. Only a small percentage of ideas are original, the rest of humanity follows and retains the ideas of others. And in our culture we have been trained to submit to our rulers, whether that be the parents, teachers, policeman, judge, employer, slavemaster, priest, scientist with a PhD, a judgmental God, etc. We have been trained to think that anyone in any position of authority has the power and the right to tell us whether we are good or evil, or right or wrong, and that they have the power and right to punish us accordingly. The people at the top of any group or organization have the right to tell us how we have to live, and what ideas are appropriate and what ideas are inappropriate.

To have someone at the top is fine when that person lives according to the tao, or dharma, etc., but when the people at the top are egoistic, selfish, liars, with materialistic values, and greedy, and when the people at the top have not transcended the animal passions, then society is in big trouble for two reasons. 1) The people at the top will take advantage of those below them and use other humans as a means to their ends. 2) The people at the bottom will imitate the people at the top and act the same way.

We have all seen what happens with this scenario when we look around us at the endless wars and robbery and lies, and in this particular instance astrologer persecution.

When it went out of fashion to have slaves, peasants, indentured servants, etc., the people at the top invented a new terminology: employers and employees. But the underlying thought-program never changed.

When it went out of fashion to have emperors, kings and queens, lords, etc., then the people at the top invented the idea of democracy, and the political rights of voting cattle, but the paradigm actually never changed.

Humans are not free in any sense of the term. They are prisoners on all levels, and the attacks on astrology are a symptom of this and a good example of the prison cage of the mind. The prison cage of the mind is more subtle and hard to detect, but it is stronger than material cages.

Humans have always been dependent upon each other for survival, being that they are herd animals and the length of upbringing (dependence) is even longer than most other animals. Anyone who steps outside of the herd, whether it is physically or mentally, is a threat to the group. Thus, astrologers are persecuted, simply because the authorities decided, for whatever reason, that astrology is not an idea which is acceptable to have.

The problem of astrologer persecution, will only be solved through one of two ways: 1) the authorities will gradually allow their 'slaves' or 'cattle' to believe in astrology again, or 2) humanity itself will change.

I am doubtful of the second one.

The first one is feasible, but the underlying reasons for the phenomenon we witnessed at BBC, will not be changed even if the first one happens, the only difference is that the 'cattle' will be trained to believe in astrology again and they will attack some other system of thought or 'unhealthy' idea - which they have been trained to believe. The phenomenon of elitist manipulated mass hysteria that was directed at Saddam Hussein or Ghaddafi or Hitler or Intelligent Design or astrology or fill-in-the-blank, will not leave us unless humanity itself changes.

Another reason astrologers are both upset with being persecuted, and why the 'cattle' persecute them, is because, generally speaking, humans have an innate need for acceptance for various reasons. Those 'cattle' who were persecuting astrologers were simply reaffirming their thought programs with each other and affirming their being accepted in the group of "enlightened so-called scientific and secular higher humans" by lashing out at astrology.

Even if our rulers could establish a one-world society, it would still be run by the same type of greedy people, and their 'cattle' would still attack astrologers or anyone whom they were trained to consider as wrong.

We can try to put leather over the entire rocky, thorny surface of the earth, or we can put some shoes on. I have been a political activist, and I bristled at those who did not care either through apathy or focus on more shallow things, but lately I have been contemplating putting some shoes on.

Some precious, wicked thoughts.

ETA: But we each have our own path to walk, so I wish you luck Deb, and anyone else involved.
I couldn't have put that better myself. Well done.